← Back to House of Commons Debates
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme 2025-06-16
16 June 2025
Lead MP
Lucy Powell
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 13
At a Glance
Lucy Powell raised concerns about independent complaints and grievance scheme 2025-06-16 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Leader of the House of Commons moves to establish an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS), noting that its establishment in 2018 was a significant step towards addressing inappropriate behaviour in Parliament. The ICGS provides an independent mechanism for handling complaints related to bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct, ensuring fair and objective investigations. She highlights the importance of consolidating policy and procedure documents and transforming the assurance group into a permanent board as recommended by an independent review.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
Questions the necessity of amendments to increase the size of the ICGS assurance board, suggesting that it is not needed based on evaluations and independent reviews.
Warrington North
Queries about representation of trade unions in the ICGS assurance board. The Leader of the House acknowledges the important role of trade unions and confirms that both house staff and MPs’ staff unions are represented on the ICGS stakeholder group.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Requests clarification on the grievance process for members of staff, Members of Parliament, and others working in the parliamentary community. The Leader of the House explains that there is a helpline and other ways to get advice and make complaints.
Lizzi Collinge
Lab
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Collinge expresses concern over the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, questioning whether Jesse Norman's party supports an independent process and would make changes to the ICGS if in government.
Sarah Russell
Lab
Congleton
Russell questions why Conservative MPs oppose a proposal that they typically associate with deregulation, arguing it could create additional bureaucracy around an independent organisation.
Cardiff West
Barros-Curtis draws parallels between the ICGS's procedural autonomy and similar provisions within the Conservative party constitution, questioning why this principle should not apply to Parliament.
Rachel Blake
Lab/Co-op
Cities of London and Westminster
Blake, a member of the House of Commons Commission and ICGS advisory group, defends the scheme's importance for maintaining trust and attracting talent into the parliamentary community. She emphasises that the advisory board governs procedures but does not make individual judgments.
Chelmsford
Supports the motion as a result of the Kernaghan review, outlines how the amendments tabled would negatively impact complainants' ability to raise issues and prevent manipulation of the system by those accused. Emphasises that avoiding political influence is crucial for ensuring fair treatment.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
Acknowledges progress made in professionalising Parliament but warns against complacency, expresses concern over amendments that could provide a cover for abuse. Supports the motion while raising questions about representation of workforce voices on the assurance board.
Alberto Costa
Con
South Leicestershire
Welcomes the Government's motion to establish an assurance board and introduces a clear policy framework, stresses the importance of timely outcomes for complainants and respondents, and highlights the role of the Standards Committee in monitoring ICGS operations.
Lucy Powell
Lab
Derby Noth
Supports the motion, stressing the importance of maintaining oversight by the Standards Committee and highlights that while changes to procedural rules will be made, policy decisions remain with the House. Acknowledges improvements in timeliness and quality but calls for further enhancements.
Alberto Costa
Con
South Leicestershire
Chair of the Standards Committee who acknowledges past concerns about the ICGS but notes that improvements have been made. Supports the motion as it aims to ensure a better workplace environment, stressing cross-party cooperation.
Rachel Blake
Lab
Cities of London and Westminster
Welcomes the opportunity for procedural reforms but raises concerns about the exclusion of certain stakeholders from decision-making processes. Supports the motion with amendments that aim to ensure comprehensive representation in the assurance board.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
Norman argues against the motion's proposed autonomy for the assurance board, insisting that decisions should be subject to House approval. He highlights concerns over bureaucratic sludge and non-democratic accountability.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.